I am surprised the allotment for 31 in Cleveland is still non-directional post transition.

The allotment is for 625 kW ND, a hair more than the 600 kW they petitioned for. (Probably to make it less troublesome with regard to Canadian coordination.)

They likely wouldn't need to replace the antennas but just change the signal going to the antennas.

Which would still necessitate a tower climb, if the antenna is even designed for that.

Besides, wouldn't that antenna be lower than the VHF one? If so, I am sure they would want to move it up the tower.

Sister station WGHP in Greensboro, NC reverted from 8 to 35 more than 11 months ago and has no current plans to remove or replace the top-mounted 8 antenna since it would be very expensive for minimal gain.

- Trip

The Fact is when WJW was testing on rf 31. I was able to watch it 2 different evenings. And that was with CITY analog at 529kW. Apparently, In the DTV proposal CITY was not broadcasting at 900kW. (but 529kW, Unless i read it wrong)

Tropospheric Scattered is all about hot/cold currents over Water. (Lake Erie) So depending on which side of the hill you are on. CITY will have drop outs for some of us.

Read ya l8r,
Al

PS. If Rogers corp doesnt care about OTA. Then they can leave the system at 25kW vs 125kW. I am quite surprised with proposal and quite happy with it.

Index of RBL Dtv Proposals

Call Sign Area ST Netw. (Primary) A. CH Future RF CH AERP (kW) MERP (KW) EHAAT (m) Pattern Pop. (1000) Cost ($1000) Document Link
Citys
CHMI-TV Winnipeg MB (Citytv) 13 13 5 8.3 324.3 D -11]849 1300 FILE (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/broad/applications/2010/2010-0881-3.zip)
CITY-TV Toronto ON (Citytv) 57
CITY-TV-2 London ON (Citytv) 31 31 12.85 20 293 D -76]1340 500 2010-1407-6 (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2011/2011-63.htm)
CITY-TV-3 Ottawa ON (Citytv) 65 17 5.1 5.1 215.4 ND 2]1261 300 FILE (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/broad/applications/2009/2009-1151-2.zip)
CKAL-TV Calgary AB (Citytv) 5 49 100 100 378 ND 12]1188 500 FILE (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/broad/applications/2010/2010-0035-6.zip)
CKAL-TV-1 Lethbridge AB (Citytv) 2
CKEM-TV Edmonton AB (Citytv) 51 17 85 107 294 D 36]1103 550 FILE (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/broad/applications/2010/2010-0050-5.zip)
CKVU-TV Vancouver BC (Citytv) 10 33 4.3 8.3 670 D *2504 FILE (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/broad/applications/2010/2010-1430-8.zip)

Omnis
CFMT-TV Toronto ON (OMNI) 47
CFMT-TV-1 London ON (OMNI) 69 48 17 25 197.6 D 27]687 500 2010-1405-0 (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2011/2011-63.htm)
CFMT-TV-2 Ottawa ON (OMNI) 60
CHNM-TV Vancouver BC (OMNI) 42
CHNM-TV-1 Victoria BC (OMNI) 29 29 1.65 2.75 99.6 D -0]336 400 FILE (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/broad/applications/2010/2010-0037-2.zip)
CJCO-TV Calgary AB (OMNI) 38 38 25 25 371 ND 37]1167 1200 2010-0960-6 (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2010/2010-855.htm)
CJEO-TV Edmonton AB (OMNI) 56 44 46 58 294 D 27]1078 1200 2010-1406-8 (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2011/2011-63.htm)
CJMT-TV Toronto ON (OMNI) 69
CJMT-TV-1 London ON (OMNI) 20 20 10.6 197.6 D 205]689 500 FILE (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/broad/applications/2010/2010-1404-2.zip)
CJMT-TV-2 Ottawa ON (OMNI) 14

Why are CKVU and CHNM broadcasting on Mt. Seymour at only 8.3kW?

It seems very low. Strangely enough, CHNM 20.1 comes in for me at 100%, but CKVU 47.1 bottoms out at 10% to 20% with intermittent breakups. I have to hit it within a very small sweet spot with my rotator.

What I remember is CHNM-DT is now using the CHAN-DT's transmitter in Mt. Seymour where CKVU-DT have it's own transmitter up there.

There are 2 transmitters there:

CBC tower:
-CBUT-TV
-CBUT-DT
-CBUFT-TV
-CHNM-TV

Rogers tower:
-CIVT-TV
-CIVT-DT
-CHAN-TV
-CHAN-DT
-CKVU-DT
-CHNM-DT
-CIVI-TV(2)

Hmm...
CJMT-DT Toronto was approved to use RF 51. So I guess that means that CITY-DT Toronto will use CJMT assignment of rf 44.

Read ya l8r,
Al

Is it possible that CHNM and CKVU are so much lower in Peak and Average ERP than the others because of licensing costs or technical issues, or is it partly because they're on someone else's tower? I would think, unless they're going to be on translators not too far out, that they would want to double their Peak and Avg. ERP just for acceptable and competitive coverage with the other local stations. It should be interesting to see what CHEK does as well.

CITY-TV-3 Ottawa ON (Citytv) 65 17 5.1 5.1 215.4 ND 2]1261 300 FILE (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/broad/applications/2009/2009-1151-2.zip)

Your link is to CITY-DT-3's application for its current transitional license. In the application they asked for the parameters to be used post transition, but I don't think the CRTC approved that and I haven't seen anything further. Does anyone know what is going on?

Generally there will be a rationale given for the ERP levels found in the license applications of the stations when they are submitted to the CRTC. Some of our members are quite good at finding that info on the CRTC site.

I'm pretty good at digging up stuff too:

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2010/2010-108.htm

Without knowing all about ownership details, could it be that Rogers who now runs CKVU also has another channel they're running in the same area, and so they have to operate one at lower power? - I don't know if OTA is becoming like that in other regions with the big phone and internet service providers owning more of what was once either independent or operated by smaller local companies: take Global TV, it's now currently part of "Shaw Media." Hmmm. Rogers, Shaw, Bell.

Think about this:
Rogers, Shaw and Bell: They are all pay TV(cable TV and Satellite TV) service providers...

And Rogers has nothing about Pay TV servise here.

I'm not sure I get your point Swan_ch.

I know that the above-mentioned are pay for service tv/telecommunication providers. I was intimating that they are also involved in ownership- it seems a growing ownership- of non pay, OTA television networks and stations in Canada. Rogers submitted the CRTC application license for their OTA digital television station CKVU in Vancouver, and has a transmission tower on Mt. Seymour.

Archerotor, What I am trying to show is that since Roger has nothing about pay-TV service here, it seems like Rogers don't want to care that much on the OTA signal than Shaw and Bell, and Rogers just told CRTC they will transmit in 8.3kW while the other told CRTC they transmitted with much more watts with their digital signal.

I got no luck digitally from OMNI("hits and misses" in real good weather) and Citytv(just hit once in a heavy snow day), but one thing I am quite sure, when OMNI was still on the Fraser Valley(now JoyTV, UHF66), CHNM has started palnning on building the DTV signal up (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2008/db2008-70.htm) while CKVU is just like...wait till CBC take some action to DTV. So when Rogers has decided of turning the DTV signal up in Vancouver, CHNM can run everything easily(...in 480p) when CKVU is just a mess.

This is what I think why you can get a better signal on CHNM but not CKVU when both shared the same transmitter(as VBC1 mentions) with the same EWP.

Don't know if anyone else got this message, but I got this from a Engineer of Roger's Media:

Hi,

One of the main reasons we are moving CITY to 44 is a greater coverage for Citytv.and allows an increase of power to 5 Kw. Channel 51 wiil still provide a great coverage area. Our plan is to transmit all 3 stations from FCP in Toronto starting Sept. 1, OMNI 1 ch. 47, OMNI 2, ch. 51 and CITY ch.44. This is only for a short time until about mid Oct when all thrree signals will broadcast from the CN Tower using the current 41/47 antenna. I thought this may give you a better understanding on the direction we are going.

Now I don't know about anyone else, but I've got some concerns with them only broadcasting at 5kW. They've been allocated to pump up to 21kW. I've already expressed my displeasure about this. Also, I'm finding out about the 41/47 allocation for the three channels. First the correction, which I think he meant to say 44/47, since 41 is for CIII (Global), but which channel is going to become a sub of one of the other channels? Personally I think it is going to be the two OMNI's (OMNI1 w/OMNI2 as a sub). Like to hear what others have to say on all this.

Don't know if anyone else got this message, but I got this from a Engineer of Roger's Media:



Now I don't know about anyone else, but I've got some concerns with them only broadcasting at 5kW. They've been allocated to pump up to 21kW. I've already expressed my displeasure about this. Also, I'm finding out about the 41/47 allocation for the three channels. First the correction, which I think he meant to say 44/47, since 41 is for CIII (Global), but which channel is going to become a sub of one of the other channels? Personally I think it is going to be the two OMNI's (OMNI1 w/OMNI2 as a sub). Like to hear what others have to say on all this.
I think you misintepreted the quote above.
They will move back to the CN Tower in October, and transmit on three channesl (44, 47, 51) using the current 41/47 antenna. It doesn't say anything about using subchannels.
As for 5 kW vs. 21 -- I'm not sure -- often, transmission technicians talk in terms of transmitter output power, which does not include the gain of the antenna reflected in the ERP value. (7 dB is a pretty low system gain for UHF, though. I'd have to look at the technical brief to "reverse engineer" his statement.)

The CN Tower does transmit on several different channels using one antenna--this wasn't a typo.

Thanks guys. I forgot to realize that the CN Tower has an antenna that covers a range of frequencies.

Also tvlurker, you're most likely right, he most likely was talking TPO. Does anyone know what the antenna gains are on the CN Tower or FCP? We can calculate a basic/somewhat ballpark ERP by the formula TPO+dBd.

I knew someone here would aid me in understanding the jargon better.

According to the engineering brief supplied with the CRTC application for Global Toronto CIII-DT-41, the current 41/47 antenna on CN Tower is an 8-bay, 5-panel antenna with gain of 15.1 dBd (or 32.4 times). System efficiency is 75.3%. CIII-DT-41 will be using a 5 kW transmitter operating @ 4.1 kW, giving an ERP of 100 kW.
If your engineering source for CITY-DT says moving back to CN Tower will allow for using a 5 kW transmitter on Channel 44, perhaps there are regulatory requests for a power boost that we've yet to hear about. (The Industry Canada allotment for Channel 44 in Toronto allows for 1 MW @ 303.7 metres.)

I asked my contact at Rogers and he said that the post transition license for CITY-DT-3 (Ottawa) was approved in January and the technical parameters will not change (Ch 17, HAAT 215.4m, Avg. ERP 5100 W).

Looking at the CRTC and the most recent Broadcasting Information Bulletin for Applications processed pursuant to streamlined procedures (published April 6) only covers applications that were processed from 1 November 2010 to 31 December 2010, so it should be in the next publication (likely in a couple months).